Herobizkit
Adventurer
Title says it all. I've heard scores of arguments FOR guns in D&D... now I'd like to hear from the other side of the fence. What is it about guns that just screams "NO!" in your campaign worlds?
Why DON'T people like guns in D&D?
- Thread starter Herobizkit
- Start date
Silvercat Moonpaw
Adventurer
I actually found that the Fantasy Gun Control entry on TV Tropes summarizes both sides of the issue quite well. Also provides a boatload of examples for either side, including some really good ones.
For me, there are two issues...
1) I haven't seen guns done well, and I think that's because they aren't a really good fit for the system, mechanically.
2) More importantly - guns are out of genre, in terms of the fiction. They simply aren't a classic fantasy trope, so they break the general feel I'm normally trying for when I play or run D&D. If I want guns in my fantasy, I'll pick up Deadlands or Shadowrun, and run a game in a world where guns fit into the milieu.
1) I haven't seen guns done well, and I think that's because they aren't a really good fit for the system, mechanically.
2) More importantly - guns are out of genre, in terms of the fiction. They simply aren't a classic fantasy trope, so they break the general feel I'm normally trying for when I play or run D&D. If I want guns in my fantasy, I'll pick up Deadlands or Shadowrun, and run a game in a world where guns fit into the milieu.
Jeff Wilder
First Post
This was pretty much me, up until Freeport. (I resisted for a while, even while running in Freeport, but eventually gave in.)
When I was (much) younger, D&D was (or at least seemed to me to be) more strongly rooted in medieval fantasy. Nowadays, D&D is arguably it's own brand of fantasy, mixing medieval, renaissance, and other influences. Guns seem to fit better now than they did then.
Basically, if pirates fit D&D, then why not guns?
Also, when I was (much) younger, I was (selectively) hung up on realism. I'm not sure how the blindspot developed, but while it was okay with me that someone could get "hit" by a four pound sword and only lose a few hit points, it bugged me inordinately if a bullet only cost a few hit points.
I got over it.
IMO, the only good argument against guns in D&D is the same as any argument of "tone," and similarly only valid for that particular game.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Ed_Laprade
Adventurer
Like many, they just scream "Not Fantasy" to me. However, back before AD&D came out our group fooled around with black powder guns and had no problem with them. (In our efforts to turn Melee and Wizard into a roleplaying game.) But I've just never been comfortable with them in D&D.
For the same reason the Complete Book of Elves in 2e sold and crossbows continue to be mechanically terrible compared to bows.
I like guns in D&D, specifically faux renaissance-style quasi muskets with ludicrously short relaod times. Also lasers.
That said, D&D doesn't necessarily work well with guns.
1) Take a look through the Monster Manual. Any monster manual will do. A great many, if not most, monsters are built to be most effective in hand to hand combat. Many monsters, perhaps a majority, lack any ranged attack at all. PC's with guns vs. claw/claw/bite = dead monster.
2) The archetypical game of D&D takes place indoors, where lines of sight are short and fields of fire are limited. A sort of counterweight to point #1, above, this makes firearms somewhat less effective.
3) D&D's "armor makes you harder to hit/damage" paradigm makes some sense when applied to hand to hand combat, where the armor presumably absorbs some of the blow. For me at least, it makes less sense when dealing with firearms.
That said, D&D doesn't necessarily work well with guns.
1) Take a look through the Monster Manual. Any monster manual will do. A great many, if not most, monsters are built to be most effective in hand to hand combat. Many monsters, perhaps a majority, lack any ranged attack at all. PC's with guns vs. claw/claw/bite = dead monster.
2) The archetypical game of D&D takes place indoors, where lines of sight are short and fields of fire are limited. A sort of counterweight to point #1, above, this makes firearms somewhat less effective.
3) D&D's "armor makes you harder to hit/damage" paradigm makes some sense when applied to hand to hand combat, where the armor presumably absorbs some of the blow. For me at least, it makes less sense when dealing with firearms.
Similar Threads
